Site search
sponsored by
News
I am greatly concerned that the lower- and middle-income Americans who drastically need and desire many social changes and improvements in order to counteract the greed and corruption of our current capitalist system stand little chance of getting congress to support the Obama administration in assisting them.
The current Republican “Party of No” voted in unison with Bush when they were in the majority because they are dependent upon the huge contributions — disgustingly necessary in our oppressive private funding of elections — from the big financial, oil, pharmaceutical, health insurance and military industrial complexes. They support and benefit from this corporate greed cannot abide by any increase in taxes (especially estate/death taxes — being among the minority to benefit from this), and the mere mention of “social” improvements resonates as “socialism” or even “communism” with them.
Obama struggles with the numerous congressional Democrats who are also dependent upon these contributions, have difficulty seeing the desperate needs of the average citizens, probably could not be re-elected if voting for anything that could possibly mean a tax increase, and also can be swayed by the stigma of the words “nationalized” or “socialized.”
All congressional members fall into the category of the “haves,” and most display little concern or compassion for the “have-nots.” For one thing in particular, Congress has a wonderful health care insurance plan — one which every American should also have. Obama is faced with many dilemmas that he is trying to address (Bush's two wars, the economy, financial institution regulation, environmental concerns, immigration, election funding, climate change, deteriorating infrastructure, social security,etc.), but health care is the most pressing and costly to the average American.
In an editorial in the June 29 Summit Daily, Gail Westwood related many personal experiences where major medical emergencies that incurred in countries with socialized or universal systems resulted in immediate, highly professional, and extensive treatment with minuscule or no financial cost to the patient — but in our current system would have resulted in bankruptcy and/or financial ruin. The Republicans constantly decry that they don't want to place government between the patient and their doctor, and that any public option would be too expensive. It couldn't be less fair and just than having the greedy health insurance companies between the patient and doctor, and we can't afford not to have a public option.
When Obama was elected, my naiveté, emotion and desire for a better America gave me hope that congressional Democrats would respond to the majority voice of the American people and support him. I still have hopes, but they diminish every day that Congress succumbs to the constant pressure imposed by lobbyist and big money. As long as elections are decided by corporate funding and pressure — and not by forced public funding and the desire for improving the conditions and lives of the average citizen — I see no real change and improvement in our democratic system. We average Americans must keep the pressure on our elected officials.
The current Republican “Party of No” voted in unison with Bush when they were in the majority because they are dependent upon the huge contributions — disgustingly necessary in our oppressive private funding of elections — from the big financial, oil, pharmaceutical, health insurance and military industrial complexes. They support and benefit from this corporate greed cannot abide by any increase in taxes (especially estate/death taxes — being among the minority to benefit from this), and the mere mention of “social” improvements resonates as “socialism” or even “communism” with them.
Obama struggles with the numerous congressional Democrats who are also dependent upon these contributions, have difficulty seeing the desperate needs of the average citizens, probably could not be re-elected if voting for anything that could possibly mean a tax increase, and also can be swayed by the stigma of the words “nationalized” or “socialized.”
All congressional members fall into the category of the “haves,” and most display little concern or compassion for the “have-nots.” For one thing in particular, Congress has a wonderful health care insurance plan — one which every American should also have. Obama is faced with many dilemmas that he is trying to address (Bush's two wars, the economy, financial institution regulation, environmental concerns, immigration, election funding, climate change, deteriorating infrastructure, social security,etc.), but health care is the most pressing and costly to the average American.
In an editorial in the June 29 Summit Daily, Gail Westwood related many personal experiences where major medical emergencies that incurred in countries with socialized or universal systems resulted in immediate, highly professional, and extensive treatment with minuscule or no financial cost to the patient — but in our current system would have resulted in bankruptcy and/or financial ruin. The Republicans constantly decry that they don't want to place government between the patient and their doctor, and that any public option would be too expensive. It couldn't be less fair and just than having the greedy health insurance companies between the patient and doctor, and we can't afford not to have a public option.
When Obama was elected, my naiveté, emotion and desire for a better America gave me hope that congressional Democrats would respond to the majority voice of the American people and support him. I still have hopes, but they diminish every day that Congress succumbs to the constant pressure imposed by lobbyist and big money. As long as elections are decided by corporate funding and pressure — and not by forced public funding and the desire for improving the conditions and lives of the average citizen — I see no real change and improvement in our democratic system. We average Americans must keep the pressure on our elected officials.
